Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels in The Sensible Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

1
Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 2
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3
Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 7
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 8
ABSTRACT 9
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 10
SuperHyperGirth and neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth . Two different types of 11
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 12
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 14
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 15
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 17
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 18
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 19
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 20
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 21
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 22
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 23
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 24
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 25
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 26
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 27
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 28
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 29
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an neutrosophic 30
SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 31
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 32
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 33
SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an neutrosophic 34
SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 35
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 36
neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 37
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 38
no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have an neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in an 39
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth 40
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 41
N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients 42
defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high 43
cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 44
1/275
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 45
SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; an neutrosophic 46
SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 47
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 48
the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 49
neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 50
cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic 51
SuperHyperVertex not to in an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 52
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have an neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in an 53
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly 54
corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth 55
C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 56
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that 57
there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 58
SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an neutrosophic 59
R-SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 60
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 61
neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 62
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 63
no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have an neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in an 64
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth 65
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 66
N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients 67
defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high 68
cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 69
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 70
SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; an neutrosophic 71
R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 72
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 73
the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 74
neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 75
cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic 76
SuperHyperVertex not to in an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 77
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have an neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in an 78
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly 79
corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 80
δ−SuperHyperGirth is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality 81
such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 82
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and 83
|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is an 84
δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 85
δ−SuperHyperDefensive; an neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperGirth is a maximal 86
neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that 87
either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 88
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 89
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; and 90
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if 91
S is an neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is 92
an neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version 93
of a SuperHyperGirth . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 94
SuperHyperGirth more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 95
SuperHyperGirth, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperGirth ”. The 96
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 97
2/275
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 98
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperGirth . It’s redefined an neutrosophic 99
SuperHyperGirth if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 100
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic 101
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of 102
Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its 103
Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 104
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 105
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 106
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 107
based on a SuperHyperGirth . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation 108
of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all 109
SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperGirth, then it’s officially called a 110
“SuperHyperGirth” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperGirth . There are some instances 111
about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperGirth ”. These two 112
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 113
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperGirth . For the sake of 114
having an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 115
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” and a “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth ”. The 116
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 117
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 118
assign to the values. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 119
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperGirth 120
are redefined to a “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” if the intended Table holds. It’s 121
useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 122
to get neutrosophic type-results to make an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth more 123
understandable. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 124
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 125
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 126
SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic 127
SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic 128
SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 129
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 130
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic 131
value from all the SuperHyperGirth amid the maximum value amid all 132
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperGirth .] SuperHyperGirth . A graph is a 133
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 134
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 135
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 136
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 137
SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 138
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 139
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 140
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 141
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 142
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 143
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 144
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 145
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 146
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 147
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 148
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 149
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 150
3/275
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 151
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 152
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 153
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In 154
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 155
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 156
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 157
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 158
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 159
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 160
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 161
said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 162
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 163
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 164
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 165
cells could be fantasized by an neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 166
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 167
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperGirth or the strongest 168
SuperHyperGirth in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 169
SuperHyperGirth, called SuperHyperGirth, and the strongest SuperHyperGirth, called 170
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 171
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 172
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 173
of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, 174
it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 175
A basic familiarity with neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and 176
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 177
Keywords: neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, (neutrosophic) SuperHyperGirth, 178
Cancer’s neutrosophic Recognition 179
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 180
1 Background 181
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 182
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 183
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 184
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 185
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 186
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 187
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 188
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 189
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 190
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 191
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 192
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 193
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 194
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 195
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 196
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 197
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 198
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 199
4/275
majority of notions. 200
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 201
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 202
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 203
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 204
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 205
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 206
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 207
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 208
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 209
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 210
based on initial background. 211
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 212
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 213
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 214
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 215
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 216
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 217
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 218
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 219
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 220
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 221
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 222
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 223
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 224
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 225
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 226
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 227
(2022), “neutrosophic SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 228
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 229
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 230
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 231
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 232
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 233
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 234
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 235
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 236
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 237
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 238
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 239
of Full Connections With neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 240
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry 241
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 242
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 243
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 244
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 245
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), 246
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 247
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 249
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by 250
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 251
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 252
5/275
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), 253
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 254
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [16] by Henry 255
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 256
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 257
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 258
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 259
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), 260
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 261
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [18] by 262
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 263
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [19] by 264
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 265
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 266
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 267
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 268
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 269
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 270
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 271
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 272
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 273
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 274
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 275
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 276
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 277
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 278
Cancer’s neutrosophic Recognition With Different Types of neutrosophic 279
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 280
Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett (2023), “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the 281
Failures on the Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 282
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 283
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 284
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 285
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 286
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 287
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 288
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 289
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 290
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 291
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 292
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 293
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 294
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 295
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 296
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 297
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 298
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 299
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 300
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 302
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 303
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 304
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 305
6/275
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 306
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 307
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 308
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 309
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 310
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 311
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 312
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 313
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 314
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 315
Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 316
than 2732 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 317
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 318
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 319
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 320
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 321
in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 322
than 3504 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 323
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 324
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 325
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 326
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 327
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 328
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 329
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 330
2 Motivation and Contributions 331
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 332
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 333
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 334
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 335
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 336
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 337
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 338
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 339
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 340
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 341
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 342
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 343
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 344
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 345
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 346
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 347
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 348
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 349
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 350
called “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 351
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 352
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 353
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 354
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 355
7/275
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 356
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 357
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 358
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 359
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 360
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 361
formally called “ SuperHyperGirth” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 362
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 363
for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 364
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 365
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 366
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 367
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 368
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 369
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 370
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 371
some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 372
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an neutrosophic 373
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 374
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 375
either the optimal SuperHyperGirth or the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth in those 376
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 377
SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two 378
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 379
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 380
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 381
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 382
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 383
find the “ amount of SuperHyperGirth” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells 384
based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 385
SuperHyperGirth” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 386
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 387
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 388
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 389
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 390
SuperHyperGirth” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” on “SuperHyperGraph” and 391
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to 392
define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion 393
with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to 394
make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some 395
results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, 396
“Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 397
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 398
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 399
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 400
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 401
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 402
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 403
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperGirth and 404
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperGirth” and 405
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order 406
8/275
to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and 407
neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, 408
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, 409
titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on neutrosophic 410
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 411
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 412
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 413
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 414
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 415
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 416
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 417
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 418
SuperHyperGirth”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” 419
and “Results on neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about 420
what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this 421
research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for 422
this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperGirth”. The keyword of this research 423
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 424
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 425
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 426
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 427
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 428
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 429
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 430
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 431
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 432
3 Preliminaries 433
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 434
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 435
Definition 3.1 (neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [42],Definition 2.1,p.87). 436
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x; then

the Neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 437
+
]− 0, 1 [. 438
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [45],Definition 6,p.2). 439
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A

single valued neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by truth-membership
function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a falsity-membership
function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be
written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
9/275
Definition 3.3. The degree of truth-membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [44],Definition 440
3,p.291). 441
Assume V 0 is a given set. an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 442
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 443
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 444
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 445
1, 2, . . . , n); 446
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 447
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 448
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 449
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 450
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 451
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 452
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 453
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,
IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

and FV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[FV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0
where i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 . 454
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 455
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 456
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 457
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 458
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 459
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 460
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 461
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 462
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 463
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 464
10/275
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 465
(Ref. [44],Section 4,pp.291-292). 466
Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 467
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 468
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 469
could be characterized as follow-up items. 470
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 471
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 472
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 473
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 474
HyperEdge; 475
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 476
SuperEdge; 477
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 478
SuperHyperEdge. 479
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 480
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 481
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [43], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 482
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 483
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 484
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 485
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 486
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 487
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 488
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 489
Assume V 0 is a given set. an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 490
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 491
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 492
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 493
1, 2, . . . , n); 494
11/275
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 495
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 496
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 497
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 498
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 499
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 500
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ). 501
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 502
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 503
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 504
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 505
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 506
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 507
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 508
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 509
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 510
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 511
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 512
(Ref. [44],Section 4,pp.291-292). 513
Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 514
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 515
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 516
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 518
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 519
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 520
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 521
HyperEdge; 522
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 523
SuperEdge; 524
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 525
SuperHyperEdge. 526
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 527
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 528
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 529
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 530
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 531
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to 532
have more understandable. 533
Definition 3.13. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 534
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 535
12/275
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 536
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 537
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 538
given SuperHyperEdges; 539
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 540
SuperHyperEdges; 541
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 542
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 543
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 544
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 545
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 546
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 547
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 548
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 549
common SuperVertex. 550
Definition 3.14. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be an neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S. Then a sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
(NSHV) and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called an Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from 551
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 552
Vs if either of following conditions hold: 553
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 554
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 555
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 556
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 557
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 558
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 559
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 560
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 561
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 562
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 563
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 564
s). 565
Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

an neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is
sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
13/275
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 567
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 568
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 569
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 570
SuperHyperPath . 571
Definition 3.16. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperGirth). 572
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 573
(i) an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 574
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an 575
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality of the 576
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive neutrosophic sequence of 577
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 578
they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle; 579
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 580
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 581
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 582
neutrosophic cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 583
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic 584
SuperHyperCycle; 585
(iii) an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) 586
for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 587
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 588
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 589
SuperHyperEdges of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 590
cardinality consecutive neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic 591
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle and 592
the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; 593
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 594
an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 595
SuperHyperEdges of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 598
the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; 601
(v) an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 602
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an 603
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality of the 604
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive neutrosophic sequence of 605
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 606
they form the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle; 607
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 608
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 609
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 610
SuperHyperCycle; 613
14/275
(vii) an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial 614
C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 615
neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined 616
as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of the 617
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 618
SuperHyperCycle and the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic 621
coefficient; 622
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 623
an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 624
SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 627
the neutrosophic power is corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. 630
Definition 3.17. ((neutrosophic/neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperGirth). 631
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 632
(i) an δ−SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 633
SuperHyperGirth such that either of the following expressions hold for the 634
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 635
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 636
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 637
(ii) an Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperGirth is a neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic 638
SuperHyperGirth such that either of the following neutrosophic expressions hold 639
for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 640
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 641
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is an Neutrosophic 642
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 643
For the sake of having an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, there’s a need to 644
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 645
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 646
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 647
Definition 3.18. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 648
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 649
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 650
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 651
understandable. 652
15/275
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.20)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.19)
Definition 3.19. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 653
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 654
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 655
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic 656
SuperHyperPath , Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic 657
SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic 658
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table 659
(2) holds. 660
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 661
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth 662
more neutrosophicly understandable. 663
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, there’s a need to “redefine” 664
the neutrosophic notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. The SuperHyperVertices 665
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 666
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 667
Definition 3.20. Assume a SuperHyperGirth. It’s redefined an Neutrosophic 668
SuperHyperGirth if the Table (3) holds. 669
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth 670
The neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, is up. 671
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, S is up. The obvious simple 672

perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.20)
16/275
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, not: S is an 673
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than four neutrosophic 674
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s 675
interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic 676
type-SuperHyperSet called the 677
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” 678
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 679
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, 680
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 681
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. But all only non-obvious simple neutrosophic 682
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth amid those 683
obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected 684
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as a linearly-over-packed 685
SuperHyperModel is featured on the Figures. 686
Example 4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 687
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 688
• On the Figure (1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic 689
SuperHyperGirth, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty neutrosophic 690
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an 691
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic 692
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 693
The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is neutrosophic isolated means that 694
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as an neutrosophic endpoint. 695
Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 696
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 697
C(N SHG) = {E2 } is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth.

C(N SHG) = z is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V1 } is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth.
C(N SHG) = z is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 698
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 699
the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 700
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 701

Is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 702
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 703
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 704

17/275
Is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic 705
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 706
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 707
S of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only 708
one neutrosophic consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 709
and the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic 710
SuperHyperCycle. There are not only four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 711
inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 712
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth isn’t up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 713
type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic 714
SuperHyperSet includes only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 715
But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 716

Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 718
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 719
the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 720
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 721

Isn’t the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 722
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 723

Is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic 725
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 726
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one 727
neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic 728
SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one 729
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 730
called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth and it’s an neutrosophic 731
SuperHyperGirth. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 732
an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 733
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one neutrosophic 734
consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 735
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 736
There are only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 737
18/275
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 738

Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, 739

Is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 740
SuperHyperGirth, is: 741

Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is: 742

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 743
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 744
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 745
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called 747
the 748
is only and only 750

• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperGirth, is up. 751
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 isn’t a loop 752
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 753
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 754
19/275
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 755
an endpoint. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every 756
given neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 757

C(N SHG) = 3z is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.



20/275





21/275

the 808

E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 812
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 813
namely, E4 . 814

C(N SHG) = {V1 , V2 , V4 } is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth.
C(N SHG) = z 3 is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.


22/275



23/275




the 865

• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperGirth, is up. 868
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 869
24/275
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 870
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 871
C(N SHG) = {F, E3 , V2 , E4 , F } is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth.

C(N SHG) = 4z 2 is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V2 , F } is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth.
C(N SHG) = 4z 2 is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.



25/275





26/275

the 922

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 926
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 927
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 928
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperGirth = {}.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth = {}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial = 0.


27/275



28/275




the 979

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is mentioned as 982
the SuperHyperModel ESHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 983
29/275
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. 985
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperGirth =

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 22z 12 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperGirth = {Vi , V6 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , V1 }15
i=11 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 22z 12 .

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
30/275
the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 1008

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
Is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1010
SuperHyperGirth. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1011

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
There are not only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 1025

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, 1027

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
31/275
SuperHyperGirth, is not: 1029

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is not: 1030

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
the 1036

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 }5i=2 ∪ {Vi , Ei+12 , E12 , V1 }15
i=11 .
i=11 .
• On the Figure (7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperGirth, is up. The 1039
following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1040
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple neutrosophic 1041
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. The neutrosophic 1042
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1043

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperGirth =
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
32/275

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
33/275

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
34/275

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

the 1094

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
35/275
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1099
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. The following 1101
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperGirth = {}

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperGirth = {}
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.


36/275




37/275


the 1152

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1155
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 1156
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 1159
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 1160

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2 C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynom
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperGirth = {V1 , Vi , V16 , V1 }6i=2 .
38/275





39/275




the 1211
40/275

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of 1214
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 1215

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
41/275

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
Does has less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 1242

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
42/275

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }


{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }


{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }


{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
43/275
the 1272

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1275
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1276
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 1278

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
44/275

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
45/275

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
46/275
the 1331

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1334
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. There’s only one 1339
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges between any given neutrosophic amount of 1340
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus there isn’t any neutrosophic 1341
SuperHyperGirth at all. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1342



47/275



48/275




the 1394

49/275

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperGirth = {Vi }6i=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1404
SuperHyperGirth. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1405

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
50/275

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
51/275

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
the 1455

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {}.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirth = {}.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0
52/275

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.



53/275





54/275
the 1516

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1519
this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic graph 1520
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. 1521

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 0


55/275



56/275




the 1579

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1582
this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic graph 1583
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected 1584
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected 1585
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 1586
57/275
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {V8 , E3 , V9 , E4 , V8 }.

1593

1594

1595

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 28z 2 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {V8 , V9 , V8 }.
58/275
1596

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {V15 V17 , V15 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 14z 3 .

1602

1603

59/275
1604

1605


1609

60/275
1610

1611

1612

61/275

1626

1627

1628

62/275
1629


1634

1635

63/275
1636

1637


1641

64/275
1642

1643

1644

65/275

1659

1660

1661

66/275
1662


1664

1665

67/275
1666

1667


1670

68/275
1671

1672

1673

the 1679
69/275

1682

1683

1684

70/275
1685


1693

1694

71/275
1695


1701

72/275
1702

1703

1704


73/275
1708

1709

1710

1711

74/275

1725

1726

75/275
1727

1728


1733

76/275
1734

1735

1736


77/275
1740

1741

1742

1743

78/275

1758

1759

79/275
1760

1761


1763

80/275
1764

1765

1766


81/275
1769

1770

1771

1772

82/275
the 1778

1781

1782

1783

83/275
1784


1792

1793

84/275
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = 322 .
1794


85/275
1800

1801

1802

86/275
1803


1807

1808

87/275
1809

1810

88/275

1824

1825

1826

89/275
1827


1832

1833

90/275
1834

1835


91/275
1839

1840

1841

92/275
1842

erHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 1843
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 1844
SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one neutrosophic 1845
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1847
given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic 1848
SuperHyperGirth and it’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. Since it’s 1849
one neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic 1852
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There are only less than four neutrosophic 1854
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1855

1856

93/275
1857

1858

1859

94/275

1861

1862

1863

95/275
1864


1867

1868

96/275
1869

1870

the 1876
97/275

1879

1880

1881

98/275
1882




99/275



SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1918
ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 1919
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1922
given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic 1923
SuperHyperGirth and it’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. Since it’s 1924
one neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic 1927
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There are only less than four neutrosophic 1929
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1930

100/275


the 1939

Proposition 4.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1944
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 1945
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirth = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperGirth. In other words, the least cardinality, 1946
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an neutrosophic 1947
type-result-SuperHyperGirth is the cardinality of 1948

101/275
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth in
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
102/275
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
103/275
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
104/275
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
105/275
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
106/275
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
107/275
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
108/275
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
109/275
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
110/275
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
111/275
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1949
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 } isn’t an 1950
neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperGirth since neither neutrosophic amount of 1951
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor neutrosophic amount of neutrosophic 1952
SuperHyperVertices where neutrosophic amount refers to the neutrosophic number of 1953
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any 1954
neutrosophic kind of neutrosophic consecutive consequence as the neutrosophic icon and 1955
neutrosophic generator of the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle in the terms of the 1956
neutrosophic longest form. Let us consider the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1957

This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the 1958
eligibilities to propose property such that there’s only one neutrosophic consecutive 1959
neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic 1960
SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle given by that 1961
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth but the 1962
maximum neutrosophic cardinality indicates that these neutrosophic 1963
type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the neutrosophic lower bound in the term of 1964
neutrosophic sharpness. In other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1965

Of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up 1966
but sometimes the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1967

Of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the
generality of the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we
assume in the worst case, literally,
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }
Is an neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperGirth. In other words, the least

cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the neutrosophic cardinality, of an neutrosophic
neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperGirth is the cardinality of
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the

connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
112/275
their quasi-types but the neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperGirth is only up in
this neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperGirth. It’s the contradiction to that fact
on the neutrosophic generality. There are some counterexamples to deny this statement.
One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and star as the
counterexamples-classes or reversely direction cycle as the examples-classes, are
well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the examples-classes
and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Let V \ V \ {z, z 0 } in mind. There’s no neutrosophic necessity on the neutrosophic 1968
SuperHyperEdge since we need at least three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices to form 1969
an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the neutrosophic principles of 1970
the main neutrosophic definition since there’s no neutrosophic condition to be satisfied 1971
but the neutrosophic condition is on the neutrosophic existence of the neutrosophic 1972
SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. In other 1973
words, if there are three neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges, then the neutrosophic 1974
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended neutrosophic definition to 1975
be neutrosophicly applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z, z 0 } is withdrawn not by the 1976
neutrosophic conditions of the main neutrosophic definition but by the neutrosophic 1977
necessity of the neutrosophic pre-condition on the neutrosophic usage of the main 1978
neutrosophic definition. 1979
To make sense with the precise neutrosophic words in the terms of “R-’, the 1980
follow-up neutrosophic illustrations are neutrosophicly coming up. 1981
The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth.
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth.

The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s only one neutrosophic consecutive
neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle given by that
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, instead of
all given by Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is related to the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There are not only four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is
up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only four neutrosophic
113/275
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far four neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Isn’t the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1982
R-SuperHyperGirth. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1983

SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 1985
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 1986
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle given by 1989
that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth and 1990
it’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. Since it’s 1991
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1992
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one 1993
neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1994
and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 1995
There are not only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1996
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1997



114/275
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only simple 2002
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 2003

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but
also it’s an neutrosophic girth embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth amid
those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth, are
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2009
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 2010

Is an neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperGirth. In other words, the least cardinality, 2011
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an neutrosophic 2012
type-result-SuperHyperGirth is the cardinality of 2013

2014
Proposition 4.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the neutrosophic number of type-result-R-SuperHyperGirth has, the least
neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp neutrosophic bound for neutrosophic
cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
If there’s an neutrosophic type-result-R-SuperHyperGirth with the least neutrosophic 2015
cardinality, the lower sharp neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 2016
115/275
Proof. The neutrosophic structure of the neutrosophic type-result-R-SuperHyperGirth
decorates the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any neutrosophic
connections so as this neutrosophic style implies different versions of neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower neutrosophic bound is to
have the maximum neutrosophic groups of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have
perfect neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of
this neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the
used neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its neutrosophic properties taken from
the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in
the targeted neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no neutrosophic connection.
Furthermore, the neutrosophic existence of one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no
neutrosophic effect to talk about the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth. Since at least
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the neutrosophic
background of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge but at least two
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices make the neutrosophic version of neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the neutrosophic setting of non-obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary
to mention that the word “Simple” is used as neutrosophic adjective for the initial
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no neutrosophic appearance of the loop
neutrosophic version of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The neutrosophic adjective “loop” on the basic
neutrosophic framework engages one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it never
happens in this neutrosophic setting. With these neutrosophic bases, on an
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge thus
there’s at least an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth has the neutrosophic cardinality of
an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth has the
neutrosophic cardinality at least an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Assume an
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t an
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth since either the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is an
obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no
neutrosophic usage of this neutrosophic framework and even more there’s no
neutrosophic connection inside or the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and
as its consequences, there’s an neutrosophic contradiction with the term “neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperGirth” since the maximum neutrosophic cardinality never happens for
this neutrosophic style of the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no
neutrosophic connection inside as mentioned in first neutrosophic case in the forms of
drawback for this selected neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Let
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }}
Comes up. This neutrosophic case implies having the neutrosophic style of
on-quasi-triangle neutrosophic style on the every neutrosophic elements of this
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth is the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that some
neutrosophic amount of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle
neutrosophic style. The neutrosophic cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
116/275
But the lower neutrosophic bound is up. Thus the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality ends up the neutrosophic discussion. The first
neutrosophic term refers to the neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s an neutrosophic
SuperHyperClass of an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has no on-quasi-triangle
neutrosophic style amid some amount of its neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. This
neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes an neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has only some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no neutrosophic amount of
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The neutrosophic cardinality of this neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that
Contains some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices taken from the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used 2017
neutrosophic background in the neutrosophic terms of worst neutrosophic case and the 2018
common theme of the lower neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific neutrosophic 2019
SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are neutrosophic 2020
free-quasi-triangle. 2021
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 2022
are coming up. 2023



117/275
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is related to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is up. The
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperGirth is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic

R-SuperHyperGirth. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth and it’s an neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no
an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
instead of all given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth. There isn’t only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth,
is up. The non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic

SuperHyperGirth, not:
118/275
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 2024
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 2025
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 2026
“neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth” 2028
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth, 2030
is only and only

also it’s an neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious
To sum them up, assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then the neutrosophic number of R-SuperHyperGirth has, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperGirth with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 2032
cardinality. 2033
Proposition 4.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

If an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperGirth is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 2034
R-SuperHyperGirth is at least the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic 2035
SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 2036
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 2037
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum neutrosophic number of 2038
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth in some 2039
cases but the maximum number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 2040
neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the neutrosophic 2041
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth. 2042
119/275
Proof. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic
number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has at least no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in common.
Thus those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in an
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth. Those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are
potentially included in an neutrosophic style-R-SuperHyperGirth. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth but
with slightly differences in the maximum neutrosophic cardinality amid those
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth.

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong
to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 2043
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
2044
120/275
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth where
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 2047
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 2048
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth in 2050
some cases but the maximum number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 2051
maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 2052
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth. 2053
are coming up. 2055



SuperHyperVertices,
121/275

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

is only and only

122/275
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperGirth is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in an neutrosophic 2072
R-SuperHyperGirth. 2073
Proposition 4.5. Assume a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2074
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 2075
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2076
inside of any given neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth minus all neutrosophic 2077
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 2078
unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 2079
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth, minus 2080
all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 2081
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 2082
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 2083
addresses some issues about the neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 2084
delivers some remarks on the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 2085
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 2086
for distinct amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that 2087
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but this 2088
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either has the 2089
123/275
maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 2090
neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 2091
least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all neutrosophic 2092
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth where the 2093
neutrosophic completion of the neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, 2094
an neutrosophic embedded R-SuperHyperGirth. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 2095
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 2096
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 2097
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 2098
neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. 2099
The less than two distinct types of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are included in the 2100
minimum neutrosophic style of the embedded neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth. The 2101
interior types of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the 2102
neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior 2103
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more 2104
formal, the perfect unique connections inside the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any 2105
distinct types of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the neutrosophic 2106
R-SuperHyperGirth. Thus neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only 2107
in one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the 2108
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the 2109
embedded neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, there’s the usage of exterior neutrosophic 2110
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 2111
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One neutrosophic 2112
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 2113
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in 2114
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth. 2115
The neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth with the exclusion of the exclusion of all 2116
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and with other 2117
terms, the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth with the inclusion of all neutrosophic 2118
SuperHyperVertices in one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, is an neutrosophic 2119
quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious neutrosophic 2120
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 2121
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior 2122
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic 2123
quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them 2124
but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic 2125
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct neutrosophic 2126
SuperHyperVertices in an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth, minus all 2127
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 2128
are coming up. 2130


124/275
SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}


125/275
is only and only



cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2139
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 2140
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2141
inside of any given neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth minus all neutrosophic 2142
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 2143
an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 2144
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth, minus 2145
all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 2146
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2147
The all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic 2148
quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth if for any of them, and any of other corresponded neutrosophic 2149
SuperHyperVertex, some interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 2150
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all minus all 2151
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 2152
126/275
Proof. The main definition of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth has two titles. an 2153
neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth and its corresponded quasi-maximum 2154
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 2155
any neutrosophic number, there’s an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth with that 2156
quasi-maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 2157
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded neutrosophic 2158
SuperHyperGraph, then the neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 2159
collection of all the neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirths for all neutrosophic 2160
numbers less than its neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 2161
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 2162
neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth, again and more in the operations of collecting 2163
all the neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirths acted on the all possible used 2164
formations of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one neutrosophic number. 2165
This neutrosophic number is 2166
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-SuperHyperGirths. 2167
Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and GNeutrosophic SuperHyperGirth be an 2168
neutrosophic number, an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and an neutrosophic 2169
SuperHyperGirth. Then 2170
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic SuperHyperGirth ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is 2171
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 2172
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperGirth ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 2173
technical definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 2174
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperGirth =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the neutrosophic 2175
SuperHyperGirth poses the upcoming expressions. 2176
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
127/275
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 2177
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 2178

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 2179


2180

2181

2182

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 2183
“neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 2184
128/275
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its neutrosophic 2185
SuperHyperVertices are incident to an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 2186
another name for “neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperGirth” but, precisely, it’s the 2187
generalization of “neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperGirth” since “neutrosophic 2188
Quasi-SuperHyperGirth” happens “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” in an neutrosophic 2189
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “neutrosophic 2190
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” in an 2191
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since 2192
there are some ambiguities about the neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. 2193
To get orderly keywords, the terms, “neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, 2194
“neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperGirth”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” are up. 2195
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 2196
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperGirth be an neutrosophic number, an neutrosophic 2197
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth and the new terms are 2198
up. 2199

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
2200
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
2201
2202
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality = max zNeutrosoph
And with go back to initial structure, 2203


129/275
2204

2205

2206

Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 2207
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth 2208
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some 2209
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic 2210
SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all minus all neutrosophic 2211
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 2212
are coming up. 2214



130/275
SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

131/275
is only and only



cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2223
quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 2225
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 2226
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all 2227
minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 2228
Any neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth only contains all interior neutrosophic 2230
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 2231
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic 2232
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with 2233
no exception minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of 2234
them but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 2235
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2236
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an 2237
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some neutrosophic 2238
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all neutrosophic numbers of those neutrosophic 2239
132/275
SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 2240
than r distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given neutrosophic 2241
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an 2242
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 2243
neutrosophic bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic 2244
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2245
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 2246
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an neutrosophic 2247
SuperHyperEdge to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t 2248
an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth. Since it doesn’t have 2249
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 2251
have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2252
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum neutrosophic 2253
cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2254
but it isn’t an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth. Since it doesn’t do the neutrosophic 2255
procedure such that such that there’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 2256
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one neutrosophic 2257
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic 2258
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 2259
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 2260
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the neutrosophic procedure”.]. 2261
There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended neutrosophic 2262
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 2263
Thus the obvious neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth, VESHE is up. The obvious simple 2264
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth, VESHE , is 2265
an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all neutrosophic 2266
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of neutrosophic pairs are titled 2267
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2268
ESHG : (V, E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 2269
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 2270
maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of an neutrosophic 2271
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 2272
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 2273
Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any neutrosophic 2274
R-SuperHyperGirth only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all 2275
exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 2276
SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic 2277
are coming up. 2283

133/275

SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
134/275
is only and only



cardinality of
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2292
ESHG : (V, E). Any neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth only contains all interior 2293
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2294
from the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all 2295
possible neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic 2296
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all neutrosophic 2297
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 2298
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 2299
out. 2300
135/275
Remark 4.8. The words “ neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” and “neutrosophic 2301
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum neutrosophic type-style. In other 2302
words, they refer to the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperNumber and the 2303
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. 2304
Consider an neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then an neutrosophic 2306
SuperHyperGirth has the members poses only one neutrosophic representative in an 2307
neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2308
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider 2309
an neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (4.7), the 2310
neutrosophic results are up. Thus on a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2311
ESHG : (V, E). Consider an neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then an 2312
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth has the members poses only one neutrosophic 2313
representative in an neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2314
5 Results on neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 2315
The previous neutrosophic approaches apply on the upcoming neutrosophic results on 2316
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 2317
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 2318
Then an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth-style with the maximum neutrosophic 2319
SuperHyperCardinality is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic 2320
SuperHyperVertices. 2321
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 2322
Then an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2323
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions in the 2324
form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 2325
SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 2326
the neutrosophic unique SuperHyperEdges. an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth 2327
has the neutrosophic number of all the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Also, 2328
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirth

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirth = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth since neither amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor
amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the neutrosophic number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
136/275
This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the
eligibilities to propose property such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of
an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality indicates that these neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
couldn’t give us the neutrosophic lower bound in the term of neutrosophic sharpness. In
other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but

sometimes the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a

Is a quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp

bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth is the cardinality of

their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth.
It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some counterexamples to
deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and
cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction star as the examples-classes,
are well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the
examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 2329
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 2330
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 2331
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 2332
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 2333
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 2334
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 2335
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 2336
The neutrosophic structure of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth decorates the

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any neutrosophic connections so
as this neutrosophic style implies different versions of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower neutrosophic bound is to have the
maximum neutrosophic groups of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have perfect
neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this
137/275
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the used
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its neutrosophic properties taken from the
fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the
targeted neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no neutrosophic connection.
138/275

Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
139/275

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2343

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 2353
140/275
The main definition of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth has two titles. an 2400
141/275



142/275
And then, 2425



2427

2428

2429

143/275
up. 2446

2447
2448
2449


2451

144/275
2452

2453

are coming up. 2461



SuperHyperVertices,
145/275

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

146/275
is only and only



cardinality of
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an 2476
147/275
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperGirth, is up. There’s neither empty 2521
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2522
of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple neutrosophic 2523

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 2526

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
148/275
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no neutrosophic 2532
SuperHyperVertex of an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 2533
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are not 2534
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 2535
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is up. The 2536
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic 2537
SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic 2538
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 2539

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 2541
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 2542
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 2543

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2548
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 2550
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 2551
the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth and it’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 2552
Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic 2553
149/275
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that 2554
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is 2555
common and there’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic 2556
SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2557
inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2558

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperGirth, not: 2561

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 2562

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 2563
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 2564
150/275
Figure 21. an neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth in the Example (5.3)

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.3. In the Figure (21), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2571
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 2572
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperGirth. 2573
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 2574
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions on the 2576
form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic 2577
SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. an 2578
neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth has the neutrosophic half number of all the 2579
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality. 2580
151/275
Also, 2581

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

SuperHyperSet





152/275

153/275


154/275
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2596

155/275
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
156/275


157/275

And then, 2678



158/275
2680

2681

2682

up. 2699

159/275
2700
2701
2702


2704

2705

2706

160/275
are coming up. 2714



SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
161/275

is only and only


162/275
cardinality of
163/275

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
164/275

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
165/275

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
166/275
Figure 22. an neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the neutrosophic Notions
of neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth in the neutrosophic Example (5.5)
Example 5.5. In the Figure (22), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2824
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2825
in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 2826
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 2827
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to an neutrosophic 2829
SuperHyperEdge. an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperGirth has the neutrosophic 2830
number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Also, 2831

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X
= z |E|Neutrosophic Cardinality | E:∈EESHG:(V,E) .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirth = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 , . . . .

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = z s + z t +, . . . .

SuperHyperSet

167/275





168/275
169/275


V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
170/275

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2846

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
171/275
172/275



173/275
And then, 2928



2930

2931

2932

174/275
up. 2949

2950
2951
2952


2954

175/275
2955

2956

are coming up. 2964



SuperHyperVertices,
176/275

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

177/275
is only and only



cardinality of
178/275

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

179/275

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

180/275

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

181/275
Figure 23. an neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth in the neutrosophic Example (5.7)

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

Example 5.7. In the Figure (23), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 3074
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 3075
by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic 3076
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 3077
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 3078
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 3079
ESHB : (V, E). Then an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic 3080
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with no neutrosophic 3081
exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled neutrosophic 3082
SuperHyperNeighbors. an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth has the neutrosophic 3083
maximum number of on neutrosophic cardinality of the minimum SuperHyperPart minus 3084
182/275
those have common neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors and not unique neutrosophic 3085
SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3086

min |PESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirth = {Vi }si=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperGirthSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .

SuperHyperSet





183/275

184/275


185/275
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3101

186/275
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
187/275


188/275

And then, 3183



189/275
3185

3186

3187

up. 3204

190/275
3205
3206
3207


3209

3210

3211

191/275
are coming up. 3219



SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
192/275

is only and only


193/275
cardinality of
194/275

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
195/275

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
196/275

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.9. In the neutrosophic Figure (24), the connected neutrosophic 3329
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic 3330
featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 3331
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 3332
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 3333
SuperHyperModel (24), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 3334
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 3335
ESHM : (V, E). Then an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic 3336
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no 3337
neutrosophic exception in the neutrosophic form of interior neutrosophic 3338
SuperHyperVertices from an neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the 3339
197/275
Figure 24. an neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite neutrosophic Associated to the
neutrosophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth in the Example (5.9)
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled 3340
“SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than some of them aren’t 3341
SuperHyperNeighbors to all. an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth has the neutrosophic 3342
maximum number on all the neutrosophic summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of 3343
the all neutrosophic SuperHyperParts form some SuperHyperEdges minus those make 3344
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all or not unique. Also, 3345

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

SuperHyperSet

198/275





199/275
200/275


V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
201/275
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3360

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
202/275
203/275


[zNeutrosophic

And then, 3442

204/275


3444

3445

3446

205/275
up. 3463

3464
3465
3466


3468

3469

206/275
3470

are coming up. 3478



SuperHyperVertices,
207/275
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

is only and only

208/275


cardinality of
209/275

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
210/275

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
211/275

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
212/275
Figure 25. an neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth in the Example (5.11)
Example 5.11. In the Figure (25), the connected neutrosophic 3588
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and neutrosophic featured. The 3589
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, 3590
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic 3591
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is 3592
the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. 3593
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 3594
ESHW : (V, E). Then an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic 3595
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the 3596
neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in the form of interior 3597
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 3598
exclusion on neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them and not all. an 3599
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth has the neutrosophic maximum number on all the 3600
neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges don’t have common 3601
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3602

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

213/275
SuperHyperSet






214/275
215/275


V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
216/275
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3617

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
217/275
218/275


219/275
[zNeutrosophic

And then, 3699



3701

3702

3703

220/275
up. 3720

3721
3722
3723


221/275
3725

3726

3727

are coming up. 3735



222/275
SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

223/275
is only and only



cardinality of
224/275

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
225/275

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
226/275

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
227/275

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.13. In the neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected neutrosophic 3845
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 3846
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 3847
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 3848
ESHW : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (26), is the neutrosophic 3849
SuperHyperGirth. 3850
6 General neutrosophic Results 3851
For the SuperHyperGirth, neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, and the neutrosophic 3852
SuperHyperGirth, some general results are introduced. 3853
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is “redefined” on the 3854
positions of the alphabets. 3855
Corollary 6.2. Assume neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. Then 3856
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth =
{theSuperHyperGirthof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperGirth. }
228/275
Figure 26. an neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-
sophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth in the neutrosophic Example (5.13)
plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 3857
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 3858
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 3859
Corollary 6.3. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 3860
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth and SuperHyperGirth 3861
coincide. 3862
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an 3864
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth if and only if it’s a SuperHyperGirth. 3865
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 3867
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 3868
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on 3869
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is its 3870
SuperHyperGirth and reversely. 3871
Corollary 6.7. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 3872
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 3873
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is its 3874
SuperHyperGirth and reversely. 3875
Corollary 6.8. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 3876
SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined. 3877
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3878
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined if and only if its 3879
SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined. 3880
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined if and only if its 3883
SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined. 3884
Corollary 6.11. Assume an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 3885
SuperHyperGirth is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth is well-defined. 3886
229/275
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3887
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth 3888
is well-defined. 3889
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth 3892
is well-defined. 3893
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 3894
is 3895
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3896
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3897
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3898
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3899
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3900
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3901
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3902
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3903
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3904
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3905
statements are equivalent. 3906
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3907
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3909
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
230/275
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3911
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3913
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperGirth since the following statements are 3915
equivalent. 3916
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
3917
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3918
∅ is 3919
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3920
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3921
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3922
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3923
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3924
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3925
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3926
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3927
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3928
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following statements 3929
are equivalent. 3930
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
231/275
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3931
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3933
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following statements 3935
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3937
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 3939
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
3941
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 3942
independent SuperHyperSet is 3943
232/275
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3944
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3945
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3946
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3947
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3948
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3949
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 3950
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3951
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 3953
since the following statements are equivalent. 3954
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive 3955
SuperHyperGirth since the following statements are equivalent. 3956
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive 3957
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 3959
since the following statements are equivalent. 3960
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
233/275
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 3961
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 3963
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
3965
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3966
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 3967
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3968
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3969
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3970
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3971
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3972
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3973
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3974
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3975
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3976
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3977
SuperHyperGirth. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 3978
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 3979
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3980
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3981
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 3982
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
234/275
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDefensive 3983
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3984
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3985
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. This segment 3986
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3987
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3988
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3989
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3992
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3993
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus 3994
it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 3995
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3996
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3997
a SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 3998
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 3999
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4000
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4001
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4002
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4003
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4004
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 4005
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 4006
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 4007
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 4010
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 4011
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 4012
235/275
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive 4014
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 4015
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4017
Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4018
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 4021
(i) : the SuperHyperGirth; 4022
(ii) : the SuperHyperGirth; 4023
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperGirth; 4024
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth; 4025
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth; 4026
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth. 4027
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4028
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 4029
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4030
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 4031
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 4034
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 4035
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 4036
236/275
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 4039
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 4040
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. This segment 4041
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 4042
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 4043
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 4044
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 4047
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus 4049
it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4050
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 4053
(i) : the dual SuperHyperGirth; 4054
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperGirth; 4055
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperGirth; 4056
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth; 4057
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth; 4058
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperGirth. 4059
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4060
237/275
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 4062
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 4063
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 4066
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 4067
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 4068
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual 4070
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperUniform 4071
SuperHyperWheel. 4072
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4074
Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4075
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 4078
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 4079
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 4080
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 4081
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4085
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4086
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4087
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 4088
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 4089
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4090
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
238/275
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 4091
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth in 4092
a given SuperHyperStar. 4093
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 4094
SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4095
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4097
SuperHyperGirth and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost 4099
equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4100
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 4102
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 4103

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus 4105
O(ESHG)
it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4106
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 4110
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 4111
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 4112
is a 4113
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4117
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4118
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4119
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 4120
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 4121
239/275
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has 4122
either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 4123
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth in a 4124
given SuperHyperStar. 4125
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 4126
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 4127
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has no 4128
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 4129
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4131
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 4132
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 4133
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has no 4134
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 4135
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar 4137
nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 4138
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s an 4140
δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4141
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 4145
number of 4146
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4150
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4151
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4152
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 4153
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 4154
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4155
240/275
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 4158
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4159
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 4160
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4164
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4166
SuperHyperGirth and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost 4168
equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4169
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 4171
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 4172

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus 4174
O(ESHG)
it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4175
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 4177
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 4178
(iv) : SuperHyperGirth; 4182
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4183
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4184
241/275
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4185
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some 4186
SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 4187
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 4188
and number of connected component is |V − S|. 4189
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s a dual 4191
1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4192
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 4194
the number is 4195
at most O(ESHG) and the neutrosophic number is 4196
at most On (ESHG). 4197
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 4198
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 4199
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 4200
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following statements 4201
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following statements are 4203
equivalent. 4204
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4205
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
242/275
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following statements are 4207
equivalent. 4208
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4209
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4211
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth and V is the biggest 4213
SuperHyperSet in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is 4214
at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 4215
at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 4216
SuperHyperComplete. The number is 4218

O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 4219
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 4220
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4224
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4226
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4227
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 4228
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4229
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
243/275
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4231

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 4233
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4234
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4235
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive 4238
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number 4239
is 4240
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 4242
t>
2
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4244
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 4247
is 4249
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 4251
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4253
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 4256
is 4258
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4262
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
244/275
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong 4265
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth in a given 4266
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4267

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 4269
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4271
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected 4274
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth in a given 4275
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4276

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 4278
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
∅. The number is 4281
0 and the neutrosophic number is 4282
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 4283
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4287
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4288
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4289
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 4290
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 4291
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4293
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4295
245/275
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4297
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4299
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4301
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 4303
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the 4305
following statements are equivalent. 4306
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4307
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 4309
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4311
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is 4313
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive 4315
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the following 4317
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
246/275
The number is 4319
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 4321
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth since the 4323
following statements are equivalent. 4324
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is 4325
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive 4327
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 4330
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 4332
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 4333
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 4334
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4338
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4339
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4340
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 4341
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 4342
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4343
SuperHyperGirth. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, 4344
suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 4345
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4346
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4347
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperCycle. 4348
247/275
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4349
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 4351
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4352
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperPath. 4354
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4355
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 4357
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4358
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
SuperHyperGirth in a given SuperHyperWheel. 4360
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4362
Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4363
Thus the number is 4365
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 4366
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4367
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 4370
number is 4371
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

248/275
(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half 4381
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4382
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 4383
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 4386
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4389
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 4390
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth and they are chosen from different 4391
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 4392
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4393
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 4394
in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor 4395
complete SuperHyperBipartite. 4396

O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4398
SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 4399
Thus the number is 4402

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 4404
t>
2
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 4406
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 4407
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 4408
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 4409
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 4410
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 4411
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are 4412
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 4413
249/275
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 4414
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 4415
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 4416
(ii) vx ∈ E. 4417
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 4418
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, 4419
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x).
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4420
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, 4421
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x).
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
4422
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 4423
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then 4424
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 4425
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 4426
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, either 4428
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
or 4429
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
It implies S is SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperSet. 4430
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4431
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, either 4432
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
250/275
or 4433
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 4434
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 4435
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 4436
number. 4437
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 4438
Then 4439
(i) Γ ≤ O; 4440
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 4441
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4442
S = V. 4443
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. For all SuperHyperSets 4444
of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 4445
S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So 4446
for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 4447
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 4448
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. For all SuperHyperSets 4449
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 4450
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all 4451
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all 4452
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 4453
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4454
which is connected. Then 4455
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 4456
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4457
251/275
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4458
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4459
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. For all 4460
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4461
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 4462
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 4463
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 4464
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4465
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4466
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. For all 4467
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4468
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4469
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 4470
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 4471
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4472
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 4473
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4474
SuperHyperGirth; 4475
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4476
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4477
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4478
a dual SuperHyperGirth. 4479
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 4480
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4481
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
252/275
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4482
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4483
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual 4484
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4485
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 4487
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4488
SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4489
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 4490
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4491
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4492
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 4498
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4499
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 4500
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 4501
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4502
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4503
dual SuperHyperGirth. 4504
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 4505
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4506
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
253/275
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4507
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 4508
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4509
SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4510
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4513
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4514
SuperHyperGirth. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 4515
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 4522
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4523
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 4525
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4526
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 4527
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4528
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 4530
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4531
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
254/275
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4532
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 4533
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4534
SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4535
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4538
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4539
SuperHyperGirth. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 4540
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 4547
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4548
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4550
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4551
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4552
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 4554
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
255/275
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4562
SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4563
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 4564
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4565
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4566
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 4572
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperGirth; 4573
(ii) Γ = 1; 4574
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 4575
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperGirth. 4576
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4577
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
256/275
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4578
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4579
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. It induces 4580
S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4581
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Thus it’s 4583
enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Suppose 4584
ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4585
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4586
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 4587
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 4588
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4589
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 4590
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 4591
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 4592
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4593
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 4594

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 4595
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 4596
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 3 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
6+3(i−1)≤n
It implies S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 4597
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4598

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 4599
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 4600
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
257/275
or 4601
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
6+3(i−1)≤n
So S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 4602
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4603
6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a 4604
dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4605
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 4606
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 4607
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4608
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 4610
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 4611
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4612
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 4614

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 4615
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4616
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4617
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4618
bn c+1
SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {vi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4619
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 4622
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4623
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 4624
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 4625
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4626
258/275
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 4628
Thus 4629
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. If 4630
n
b c bn
2c
S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4631
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
n
b2c
SuperHyperGirth. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4633
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 4636
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 4637
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4638
SuperHyperGirth for N SHF; 4639
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 4640
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 4641
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 4642
SuperHyperGirth for N SHF : (V, E). 4643
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4644
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for 4645
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4646
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for 4647
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 4648
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for N SHF : (V, E). 4649
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 4651
for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 4652
259/275
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is 4653
a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4654
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for 4655
N SHF : (V, E). 4656
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 4657
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4658
SuperHyperSet. Then 4659
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4660
SuperHyperGirth for N SHF; 4661
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 4662
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4663
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperGirth for 4664
N SHF : (V, E). 4665
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4666
Thus 4667
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for 4668
bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4669
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperGirth for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 4671
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 4674
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4675
SuperHyperSet. Then 4676
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth 4677
for N SHF : (V, E); 4678
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 4679
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4680
S={vi }i=1
260/275
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperGirth for 4681
N SHF : (V, E). 4682
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4683
Thus 4684
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth for 4685
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4686
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
SuperHyperGirth for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 4688
Then following statements hold; 4692
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4693
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 4694
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4696
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive 4697
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 4700
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4702
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4703
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4704
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4706
261/275
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4709
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 4710
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4712
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 4713
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 4716
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. By S is an 4718
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth and S is a dual (s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 4719
SuperHyperGirth, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperGirth. 4720
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4721
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4722
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. By S is an 4724
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth and S is a dual s−SuperHyperDefensive 4725
SuperHyperGirth, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperGirth. 4726
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 4727
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 4728
statements hold; 4729
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c

+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4732
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4734
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4736
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4737
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4738
SuperHyperGraph. Then 4739
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1) < 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4740
262/275
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4741
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4743
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4744
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4746
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4747
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4749
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 4750
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 4751
statements hold; 4752
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4755
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4757
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4759
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4760
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
263/275
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4764
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4766
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4768
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
4769
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4771
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4772
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4775
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 4777
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4780
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4782
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
264/275
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4784
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4786
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4788
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
4789
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4791
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4792
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4795
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 4797
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth; 4798
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4800
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 4802
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4809
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4812
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 4814
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4816
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4818
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4820
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4825
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4827
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
266/275
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. 4829
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGirth. Then 4831
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
4832
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 4834
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4836
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4838
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4840
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 4845
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
267/275
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 4856
neutrosophic Recognition 4857
The cancer is the neutrosophic disease but the neutrosophic model is going to figure out 4858
what’s going on this neutrosophic phenomenon. The special neutrosophic case of this 4859
neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 4860
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 4861
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The neutrosophic recognition of the 4862
cancer could help to find some neutrosophic treatments for this neutrosophic disease. 4863
In the following, some neutrosophic steps are neutrosophic devised on this disease. 4864
Step 1. (neutrosophic Definition) The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 4865
the long-term neutrosophic function. 4866
Step 2. (neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 4867
neutrosophic model [it’s called neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 4868
neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 4869
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 4870
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 4871
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 4872
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 4873
happened and what’s done. 4874
Step 3. (neutrosophic Model) There are some specific neutrosophic models, which 4875
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general neutrosophic models. 4876
The moves and the neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 4877
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an neutrosophic 4878
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 4879
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 4880
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth or the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth in those 4881
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 4882
8 Case 1: The Initial neutrosophic Steps Toward 4883
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 4884
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 4885
Step 4. (neutrosophic Solution) In the neutrosophic Figure (27), the neutrosophic 4886
SuperHyperBipartite is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 4887
By using the neutrosophic Figure (27) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic 4888
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 4889
268/275
Figure 27. an neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperGirth
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 4890
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 4891
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 4892
9 Case 2: The Increasing neutrosophic Steps 4894
Toward neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 4895
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 4896
Step 4. (neutrosophic Solution) In the neutrosophic Figure (28), the neutrosophic 4897
SuperHyperMultipartite is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 4898
By using the neutrosophic Figure (28) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic 4899
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 4900
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 4901
previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 4902
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 4903
269/275
Figure 28. an neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
270/275
10 Open Problems 4905
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 4906
The SuperHyperGirth and the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth are defined on a 4907
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 4908
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 4909
recognitions? 4910
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperGirth and 4911
the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth? 4912
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 4913
compute them? 4914
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 4915
SuperHyperGirth and the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth? 4916
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperGirth and the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth do a 4917
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperGirth, 4918
are there else? 4919
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 4920
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 4921
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 4922
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 4923
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 4924
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 4925
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 4926
highlighted. 4927
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 4928
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 4929
SuperHyperGirth. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 4930
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 4931
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 4932
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, finds the convenient background to implement some 4933
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 4934
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 4935
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 4936
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 4937
SuperHyperGirth, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. 4938
Some general results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperGirth and the 4939
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have 4940
taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the 4941
lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 4942
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both 4943
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on 4944
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 4945
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the 4946
moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design 4947
and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperGirth” in the themes of jargons 4948
and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 4949
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some 4950
limitations and advantages of this research are pointed out. 4951
271/275
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperGirth
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
References 4952
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4953
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 4954
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 4955
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 4956
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 4957
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 4958
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 4959
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 4960
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 4961
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 4962
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 4963
(2022) 242-263. 4964
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 4965
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 4966
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4967
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4968
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 4969
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 4970
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 4971
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 4972
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 4973
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 4974
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 4975
6. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 4976
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 4977
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 4978
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 4979
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 4980
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 4981
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 4982
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 4983
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 4984
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4985
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 4986
272/275
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 4987
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 4988
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 4989
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 4990
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 4991
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 4992
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 4993
Worst Case of Full Connections With neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique In 4994
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 4995
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 4996
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 4997
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 4998
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 4999
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 5000
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 5001
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 5002
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 5003
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 5004
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 5005
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 5006
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 5007
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 5008
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 5009
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 5010
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 5011
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 5012
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 5014
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 5015
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 5016
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 5017
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 5018
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 5019
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 5020
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 5021
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 5023
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 5024
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 5025
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 5026
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 5027
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 5028
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 5029
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 5030
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 5031
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 5032
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 5033
273/275
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 5034
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 5035
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 5036
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 5037
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 5038
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 5039
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 5040
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 5041
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 5042
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 5043
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 5044
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 5045
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 5046
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 5047
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 5048
The Cancer’s neutrosophic Recognition With Different Types of neutrosophic 5049
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 5050
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 5051
26. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on 5052
the Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 5053
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 5054
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 5055
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 5056
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 5057
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 5058
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 5059
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 5060
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 5061
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 5063
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 5064
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 5065
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 5066
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 5067
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 5068
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 5069
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 5070
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 5071
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 5072
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 5075
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 5076
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 5077
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 5078
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 5079
274/275
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 5080
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 5082
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 5083
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 5084
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 5085
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 5086
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 5087
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 5088
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 5089
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 5090
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 5091
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 5092
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 5093
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 5094
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 5095
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 5096
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 5097
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 5098
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 5099
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 5100
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 5101
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 5102
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 5103
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 5104
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 5105
41. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 5106
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 5107
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 5108
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 5109
42. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 5110
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 5111
43. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 5112
(2016) 86-101. 5113
44. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 5114
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 5115
45. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 5116
275/275

Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels in The Sensible Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels in The Sensible Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 2

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3

Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4

Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 10

SuperHyperGirth and neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth . Two different types of 11

SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13

well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 14

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16

fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 17

officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 25

“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 26

to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 28

and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an neutrosophic 30

SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 31

the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 32

such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 33

SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an neutrosophic 34

SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 35

the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 36

neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 37

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 38

no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have an neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in an 39

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth 40

SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 41

N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients 42

defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high 43

cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 44

SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; an neutrosophic 46

SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 47

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 48

the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 49

neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 50

cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic 51

SuperHyperVertex not to in an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 52

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have an neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in an 53

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly 54

corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth 55

C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 56

cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that 57

there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 58

SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an neutrosophic 59

R-SuperHyperGirth C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 60

is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 61

neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 62

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 63

no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have an neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in an 64

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth 65

SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 66

N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients 67

defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high 68

cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 69

SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 70

SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; an neutrosophic 71

R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 72

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 73

the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 74

neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 75

cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic 76

SuperHyperVertex not to in an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 77

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have an neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in an 78

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly 79